Case 2501804/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Reeves v Churchills Management Ltd t/a the Armoury — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501804/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Reeves
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sweeney, sitting alone at Newcastle Employment Tribunal remotely by CVP on 1 April 2025, found that Mrs A Reeves' claim of unauthorised deduction of wages in contravention of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded. The Respondent, Churchills Management Ltd t/a the Armoury, was ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £598.88.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's claim of failure to pay holiday pay on termination of employment, in contravention of regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, was well-founded and succeeded. The Respondent was ordered to pay a further gross sum of £44.62, bringing the total amount payable to the Claimant to £643.50.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days. The written record does not set out the underlying factual findings or reasoning in detail.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996; awarded as gross sum. | Upheld | — | £599 |
| Holiday pay | Claim under regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998 for failure to pay holiday pay on termination; awarded as gross sum. | Upheld | — | £45 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £644
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.